ITEM8 C15-2022-0071 PRESENTATION 11-14 — original pdf

Backup

Variance Request 2311 Lafayette Avenue C15-2022-0071 The Board of Adjustment November 14, 2022 Micah King Husch Blackwell LLP ITEM8/1-PRESENTATIONPurpose To facilitate the replacement of an existing, non-complying secondary unit with a safe, modern new house (including elimination of the existing setback encroachments) and the preservation of the front house, which was constructed in 1948, which contributes to the neighborhood’s character. The new rear unit would become the main house, and the existing front structure would become the secondary unit. 2 ITEM8/2-PRESENTATIONMap of Property Location 3 ITEM8/3-PRESENTATIONMap of Area Zoning 4 ITEM8/4-PRESENTATIONThe Front House (To be Preserved) 5 ITEM8/5-PRESENTATIONThe Rear House (To be Replaced) 6 ITEM8/6-PRESENTATIONRequested Variances From LDC § 25-2-774(C)(2)(a), to change the requirement that the second dwelling unit must be located at least 10 feet to the rear or side of the principal structure (required) to have the second dwelling unit be in front of the principal structure (requested); and From LDC § 25-2-774(C)(5)(b), to increase the maximum size of the second dwelling unit (proposed to be the front house) from the lesser of 1,100 sq. ft. or 0.15 FAR (required) (which equates to 901.5 sq. ft.) to 948 sq. ft. (requested). 7 ITEM8/7-PRESENTATION8 ITEM8/8-PRESENTATIONPhoto of Tree with Front House on Left 9 ITEM8/9-PRESENTATIONPhoto of Rear Unit on Left 10 ITEM8/10-PRESENTATIONPhoto of Multi-Family Building to the Rear 11 ITEM8/11-PRESENTATIONThe Regulations Do Not Allow for a Reasonable Use  The regulations unreasonably constrain the ability of the owner to have adequate housing to meet their long-term needs without demolishing and replacing the existing 948-square-feet front house, which was constructed in 1948, or altering it in such a way as to negatively impact the area character, and the rear unit is a noncomplying structure that violates side and rear yard setback requirements and forcing the owner to be stuck with the rear unit is unreasonable given its state and noncomplying status and keeping it as-is would not address the need for more housing space. 12 ITEM8/12-PRESENTATIONThe Hardship is Unique to the Property  The hardship is unique to the property because it has two small, old structures that are both noncomplying, a 3-story multifamily building is immediately to the rear of the property, and options for where to provide safe, adequate, new housing that will help the owner remain in place are constrained by the narrow width of the lot, the locations of the existing structures, the required front, side, and rear setbacks, the driveway, a 24-inch Heritage Tree, and Critical Root Zones. 13 ITEM8/13-PRESENTATIONThe Hardship is Not General to the Area  The hardship is not general to the area because many nearby front houses have expanded in size or have room to expand without the buildable space being squeezed between a 25-foot front setback and a 24-inch Heritage Tree, or the original house has been demolished. As such, for many nearby properties, there is no hardship or, if there were a hardship, it is no longer general to the area because the owner scraped the lot and built a new house larger than is being requested. 14 ITEM8/14-PRESENTATIONApproval Would Not Alter Area Character  The variance will not alter the area’s character as the rear unit is non-complying and the property backs up to a 3-story apartment building, which looms over the rear yard. Approval would only enhance area character by facilitating the preservation of the front house, which is a prime example of original architecture in the neighborhood, and will result in a new rear unit that advances the purpose of the zoning regulations by eliminating encroachments and benefiting adjacent neighbors with new open space. 15 ITEM8/15-PRESENTATION16 ITEM8/16-PRESENTATION17 ITEM8/17-PRESENTATION